Catholic Conversation with Gay Friend about Gay Marriage

[yewchapel]

It may not be as simple as flipping a light switch but it is still a choice. If you (general you) choose to believe hateful and bigoted things instead of seeking out kinder and gentler religious beliefs that are more in line with your own supposed non-hateful morality, then the only conclusion is that you are doing it because you are a hateful and bigoted person.

This woman chose the Catholic church, despite its vile beliefs about certain minorities like women and homosexuals. She even admitted that she chose the Catholic church because she felt it provided a guideline for everyone to live a peaceful life (provided you aren't one of those minorities the church likes to shit on, of course) That's not fear of hell- that's a conscious decision to align yourself with an institution that props up people like yourself and beats down people not like you.

Well, as a woman the Catholic church DOES beat down people like herself. She is one of those minorities.

From looking at her other blog posts, she values the black and white of orthodoxy, even if it means going against your own personal beliefs. It's about orthodoxy, not individual beliefs. From my own experience, I used to be part of a conservative evangelical church with very black and white views on doctrine. Now, I'm part of a liberal church. While the beliefs of the church line up with my own, I actually find the lack of absolute orthodoxy difficult because that's just not how I view things - it is just natural for me to see things in black and white. Would I go back to a stricter church, whether evangelical or Catholic or whatever? No. Would I ever go back to homophobia etc? No. But I am often envious of the certainty of those who are in stricter, more dogmatic churches. That's why there are gay Catholics and contraception-using Catholics and other Catholics whose own religion beats down on them - because going against the orthodoxy is not as bad as having no orthodoxy at all.

I realise to a non-religious person, this all sounds frankly bizarre. But imo religion isn't a straight choice (pardon the pun) but down to personality types, and personally speaking I am interested in 'getting inside the head' of people like this woman so that things can change, and homophobia etc can be challenged and got rid of from the inside.

[valsa]

Well, as a woman the Catholic church DOES beat down people like herself. She is one of those minorities.

From looking at her other blog posts, she values the black and white of orthodoxy, even if it means going against your own personal beliefs. It's about orthodoxy, not individual beliefs. From my own experience, I used to be part of a conservative evangelical church with very black and white views on doctrine. Now, I'm part of a liberal church. While the beliefs of the church line up with my own, I actually find the lack of absolute orthodoxy difficult because that's just not how I view things - it is just natural for me to see things in black and white. Would I go back to a stricter church, whether evangelical or Catholic or whatever? No. Would I ever go back to homophobia etc? No. But I am often envious of the certainty of those who are in stricter, more dogmatic churches. That's why there are gay Catholics and contraception-using Catholics and other Catholics whose own religion beats down on them - because going against the orthodoxy is not as bad as having no orthodoxy at all.

I realise to a non-religious person, this all sounds frankly bizarre. But imo religion isn't a straight choice (pardon the pun) but down to personality types, and personally speaking I am interested in 'getting inside the head' of people like this woman so that things can change, and homophobia etc can be challenged and got rid of from the inside.

I may not be religious but I also prefer things in black and white. "Black and white" does not equal "conservative and discriminatory".

As for the rest, I say this as gently as I can- Boo. Freakin'. Hoo.

If your love of black and white thinking or orthodoxy causes you to be okay with stripping people of their rights and treating them worse than animals, then you are a bad person. Period. End of story. That's all she wrote.

You cans throw all the bullshit theological excuses in front of it to mask that truth, but it's still going to be there. Good people get over their fear of hell if it means treating people humanely. Good people shake off their love of black and white thinking if it means restoring rights that were unfairly stolen from people.

[Guest Anonymous]

Latching on to a specific religious system because it provides a sense of "black and white" still seems a lot like putting your own personal comfort level above the well-being of the people you're oppressing.

[freehannie]

It seems to me that what she is really saying is that she likes the comfort and community she gets from her conservative Catholicism more than she is concerned about discrimination against her friends. Because she values what the ideology does for her, she dismisses what it does to him. I don't see this as being a good friend or living Jesus's example.

[mockingbird]

The whole theology about how infertile people can marry but gay people can't pisses me off. The Catholic Church justifies the first by saying someone who's infertile can be open to life in other ways such as by adoption or even just working/volunteering with (other people's) children. But even though gay people can do either of those things and certainly be "open to life", they can't have PIV sex (which could possibly lead to a miracle baby for a couple with infertility) so nope.

[lamariposa]

I’m saying that every human being is called to make sexual sacrifices in the name of respect for human life.

JUAT.

[pookel]

If the Catholic church cared about human life as much as they claim to, they wouldn't encourage women living in poverty to have too many babies to feed them all. And they wouldn't forbid IVF, either.

[yewchapel]

I may not be religious but I also prefer things in black and white. "Black and white" does not equal "conservative and discriminatory".

As for the rest, I say this as gently as I can- Boo. Freakin'. Hoo.

If your love of black and white thinking or orthodoxy causes you to be okay with stripping people of their rights and treating them worse than animals, then you are a bad person. Period. End of story. That's all she wrote.

You cans throw all the bullshit theological excuses in front of it to mask that truth, but it's still going to be there. Good people get over their fear of hell if it means treating people humanely. Good people shake off their love of black and white thinking if it means restoring rights that were unfairly stolen from people.

You exaggerate. How does she believe in treating gay people worse than animals? Last time I checked, people don't buy animals margaritas and she didn't test cosmetics on her friend. And I don't believe in good or bad people, only good or bad actions. 'Good people shake off their love of black and white thinking' is actually IMPOSSIBLE for some people. Because you are not religious, you cannot possibly understand what a fear of hell actually means - it's not something you can just 'get over'. Perhaps learn from people who actually understand religious belief here.

[yewchapel]

Latching on to a specific religious system because it provides a sense of "black and white" still seems a lot like putting your own personal comfort level above the well-being of the people you're oppressing.

Of course it is. But she's oppressed by it herself. I'm not defending it, just explaining it for non-religious people who don't understand how it works.

[yewchapel]

It seems to me that what she is really saying is that she likes the comfort and community she gets from her conservative Catholicism more than she is concerned about discrimination against her friends. Because she values what the ideology does for her, she dismisses what it does to him. I don't see this as being a good friend or living Jesus's example.

I agree with you.

[Guest Anonymous]

yewchapel, I don't think you should burden yourself with the task of attempting to explain the mysteries of the religion to us heathens. Many non-religious people have some religious experience. Example: I was raised by a fundy father ("drenched in the blood of Jesus Christ", etc.) and was a faithful Catholic school girl for a few years. I don't think you are correct in saying that a non-religious person 'cannot possibly understand what a fear of hell actually means'. I think it's far more likely that non-religious people just find the reasoning unconvincing and unreasonable.

Personally, I think a person who gleefully goes along with a hateful, bigoted belief system because it gives them the warm-fuzzies is a lot worse than a true believer. At least a true believer thinks they are doing the right thing. The other person knows that they are hurting others but pursues it anyway. They're willing to abuse other people because it makes their life comfortable... that's not particularly understandable.

[valsa]

You exaggerate. How does she believe in treating gay people worse than animals? Last time I checked, people don't buy animals margaritas and she didn't test cosmetics on her friend. And I don't believe in good or bad people, only good or bad actions. 'Good people shake off their love of black and white thinking' is actually IMPOSSIBLE for some people. Because you are not religious, you cannot possibly understand what a fear of hell actually means - it's not something you can just 'get over'. Perhaps learn from people who actually understand religious belief here.

I'm trying to figure out if you're naive or just ignorant.

Perhaps you need to learn that not everyone who is non-religious now has always been non-religious.

I understand religious belief. I used to be religious.

You might also need to realize that you see your past self in this woman and that's why you’re overcompensating and desperate to convince us heathens that you she weren't isn’t a bad person and a bigot.

[bettertomarry]

And I don't believe in good or bad people, only good or bad actions. 'Good people shake off their love of black and white thinking' is actually IMPOSSIBLE for some people. Because you are not religious, you cannot possibly understand what a fear of hell actually means - it's not something you can just 'get over'. Perhaps learn from people who actually understand religious belief here.

All of these are your beliefs. Your beliefs and the beliefs of Conservative Catholics do not get to dictate civil policy.

And your decision to take up this woman's cause and explain it to nonreligious types is both condescending and ridiculous. You write as if no one but you has ever had a religious experience, and there are plenty of devout Christians on FJ. And there are plenty of deeply religious people who have 'gotten over' legalistic christian thinking. You excusing this woman's hate makes you seem like you agree with her position and her beliefs.

[lawfulevil]

"I feel that God told me to oppress everyone who isn't exactly like me" isn't a valid reason to make laws. It's this woman's right to wander around offending all the people who will still answer their phones when they see her name, but it isn't her right to make their relationships illegal.

Her being a wildly undereducated idiot doesn't help. "When our culture embraced contraception for the first time?"

What, you mean prehistory? Human beings have ALWAYS used various means to try to prevent conception, and they have ALWAYS used various means to control their family size. Infanticide is still extremely common in parts of the world where, you guessed it, nobody has access to birth control. Contraception isn't some new-fangled idea that's Ruining America, it's older than Christianity.

As is marriage. And gay marriage.

But you know, if "I feel that" is suddenly good enough to make laws, let me know. I have lots of feelings about who should be thrown to the lampreys... starting with the English. :P

[yewchapel]

All of these are your beliefs. Your beliefs and the beliefs of Conservative Catholics do not get to dictate civil policy.

And your decision to take up this woman's cause and explain it to nonreligious types is both condescending and ridiculous. You write as if no one but you has ever had a religious experience, and there are plenty of devout Christians on FJ. And there are plenty of deeply religious people who have 'gotten over' legalistic christian thinking. You excusing this woman's hate makes you seem like you agree with her position and her beliefs.

No, I am absolutely for marriage equality and have said it several times within this thread. Reading comprehension, please. I am not excusing her actions either, which I have also said - I am just explaining it. Not the same thing. Being able to emphasize with someone does not mean you automatically agree with their stance.

[yewchapel]

I'm trying to figure out if you're naive or just ignorant.

Perhaps you need to learn that not everyone who is non-religious now has always been non-religious.

I understand religious belief. I used to be religious.

You might also need to realize that you see your past self in this woman and that's why you’re overcompensating and desperate to convince us heathens that you she weren't isn’t a bad person and a bigot.

I certainly empathize with her. Empathy is a good thing. It doesn't mean that I endorse her beliefs - I have pointed this out ad nauseum and in my comment on her blog - but it does mean that I have a better chance of getting her to change her mind than someone who just brands her a bad person. She's clearly not a bad person. She's a good wife and mother, and must be a good friend if her gay friend is still friends with her. Bad people (not that I believe in them anyway) aren't like that. You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

And yes, I was a bigot and it was wrong. Absolutely wrong. I wasn't a bad person, since I don't believe in bad people but only bad actions, but certainly my actions were wrong.

[yewchapel]

yewchapel, I don't think you should burden yourself with the task of attempting to explain the mysteries of the religion to us heathens. Many non-religious people have some religious experience. Example: I was raised by a fundy father ("drenched in the blood of Jesus Christ", etc.) and was a faithful Catholic school girl for a few years. I don't think you are correct in saying that a non-religious person 'cannot possibly understand what a fear of hell actually means'. I think it's far more likely that non-religious people just find the reasoning unconvincing and unreasonable.

Personally, I think a person who gleefully goes along with a hateful, bigoted belief system because it gives them the warm-fuzzies is a lot worse than a true believer. At least a true believer thinks they are doing the right thing. The other person knows that they are hurting others but pursues it anyway. They're willing to abuse other people because it makes their life comfortable... that's not particularly understandable.

It's a bit more nuanced than 'it makes their life comfortable'. Usually it does the opposite. They are doing it because they are doing the right thing, but they feel uncomfortable doing what they believe to be the right thing. This is encouraged in conservative Christian circles because it's painted as 'suffering for Christ' or something similar. Like I said in my comment on her blog post, I wanted her to see that it's not necessary and you can be for marriage equality and a good Christian.

[valsa]

She's clearly not a bad person.

I don't believe in bad people

So- both naive and ignorant. Got it.

[LadyFriend]

I think there is a language problem here.

What is the difference between racism and xenophobia? I think that racism is based on a belief that races have intrisic and valued differences. On the other hand, I think of xenophobia as a fear of the other. They are intertwined and probably inextricable, but different.

We don't have an equivalent word to racism with regard to sexual orientation that I can think of. I think that many people are homophobic, but some people are making value judgments without a primary basis in fear (OK...I know it comes from fear, but I think there is room for linguistic distinction). Is there a word that I'm not thinking of? Heterosexual supremacists?

[valsa]

We don't have an equivalent word to racism with regard to sexual orientation that I can think of. I think that many people are homophobic, but some people are making value judgments without a primary basis in fear (OK...I know it comes from fear, but I think there is room for linguistic distinction). Is there a word that I'm not thinking of? Heterosexual supremacists?

I think "homophobia" is still appropriate in this context. English is a living language and the usage of the word "homophobia" has evolved beyond just the original, technical definition of "fear of homosexuals" to something closer to "fear, hatred, bias of/against homosexuals".

[LadyFriend]

I think "homophobia" is still appropriate in this context. English is a living language and the usage of the word "homophobia" has evolved beyond just the original, technical definition of "fear of homosexuals" to something closer to "fear, hatred, bias of/against homosexuals".

Fair enough. I do hope a better word evolves at some point though because it's probably easier (and catchier) for haters to refute being a literal "homophobe" than it is for us to give most people that explanation.

[LadyFriend]

So- both naive and ignorant. Got it.

I'm curious...how bad does one have to be to become a bad person? Can a good person become a bad person? Can the a bad person go back to being good?

I tend to think we all fall on a spectrum and I'm wondering how and where you draw those kinds of lines.

[valsa]

I'm curious...how bad does one have to be to become a bad person? Can a good person become a bad person? Can the a bad person go back to being good?

I tend to think we all fall on a spectrum and I'm wondering how and where you draw those kinds of lines.

Personally, I draw the line at causing harm to people. You want to be a glutton and pig out on 3 gallons of ice cream? Fine. You work in customer service and think horrible things about the bitchy customers you deal with all day? More power to you. Your sister-in-law got a great new car and you wish you could club her over the head and steal it? Whatever floats your boat.

However, you become a bad person when you start actually causing harm to people. You discriminate against people or harrass them or hurt them and you're a bad person.

[LadyFriend]

Personally, I draw the line at causing harm to people. You want to be a glutton and pig out on 3 gallons of ice cream? Fine. You work in customer service and think horrible things about the bitchy customers you deal with all day? More power to you. Your sister-in-law got a great new car and you wish you could club her over the head and steal it? Whatever floats your boat.

However, you become a bad person when you start actually causing harm to people. You discriminate against people or harrass them or hurt them and you're a bad person.

But we are all causing harm (intentionally and unintentionally) all the time. When is the last time anyone went a full day without harming others? That's an impossible standard.

* I agree with most of what you have say in general...this concept just doesn't make sense to me so I'm wondering what you really mean.

[valsa]

But we are all causing harm (intentionally and unintentionally) all the time. When is the last time anyone went a full day without harming others? That's an impossible standard.

How so?

Perhaps you go around harming a ton of people every day but most people I know don't.

Maybe you need better friends.